[Ben Sims]

I'm pretty sure that Hawtree, RTJII, Gary Player and Tom Doak did not include a woman specifically as such on the design team for her LPGA/playing/design credentials.

There might have been some women involved on their respective environmental teams, but not in the room as part of the presentation by the above-named four teams for the sake of symbolism or substance.

Be it symbolism or substance, Alcott is part of the dialogue -- even sometimes even in the place of Gil. Witness this NY Times piece:

"In what amounts to the first golfing upset of the 2016 Summer Olympics, Jack Nicklaus, Annika Sorenstam, Greg Norman, Lorena Ochoa and Gary Player lost out to Amy Alcott in the competition to design the course for the Rio de Janeiro Games."
http://onpar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/rio-committee-chooses-design-for-olympic-golf-course/?ref=sports

Headline on this story in the print edition of the NY Times delivered to my house today: Olympic Design to Alcott.

A fantastic gaff on the NYT's part.  Hopefully this selection can turn the stereotype amongst the general public and uninformed journalists that pros are the only ones designing golf courses.  Shame on you NYT for releasing that headline. 

Moving on, here is an interesting quote from Dr. Klein above.

...but what won the day was that their enthusiasm and commitment of spirit were matched by expertise that ran deep and wide, was well-presented in 45 minutes and withstood technical scrutiny before and after

I think it would be hard not to say this about whomever won the bid.  I would expect nothing less from a selection of this magnitude.  Make no mistake, Gil has some rather large players on his side.  The truest wish I have is for his design ethos to carry the day and the AECOM's and Trumps of the world to become supporters of that ethos and not the more populist design paradigms of the past few decades.  The watershed moment of this entire selection is for a classic design process and playability (re: fun) to become common and accepted popularly.  Not chided as unfair and extreme.   

[Steve Lang]

  Ben,

"Popuslist design paradigms" ... sounds like loaded language or a disertation to me!

s

[Jeff_Brauer]

It does seem the committee did their job, and I like the fact that they really scrutinized the presentations and concepts they made the finalists go through.

As a finalist in many similar (albeit less magnitude) presentations, I always try to get feedback, and inevitably, they say they didn't see my committment to "X" issue.  I know I mentioned it, but the key is to effectively make your case for their hot buttons, rather than just list them in sort of obligatory fashion.

Anyway, good to see good old hard work, enthusiasm and thinking pay off as the process is designed to be.  Best presentation wins!  Much better than "You were good, but we decided to go with the famous guy."  Of course it is hard to stand out when presenting against that level of competition, who all presumably wanted the job just as much.  That Gil and Co. managed to do so is very impressive.

Still wondering if he was the "dark horse" that was rumored.  I suspect he was. 

[Tim Leahy]

Loved Gil's work at Soule Park and Rustic where we played the Kings Putter a couple of years ago. Has he done any courses in Northern California?

[astavrides]

If they had to choose between Hanse and Doak only, why do people think they picked Hanse?  Hanse is a fine architect, but I would argue that Doak is more accomplished and better.  Does it have something to do with Hanse having redone Boston and done Castle Stuart, verus Doak not having a track record on courses played on the tours IIRC, with the slight exception of the Kiwi challenge a few years back? 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom Doak does have a bit of an open flank in Europe, especially continental Europe, which is an important market for the European Tour. However, I haven't seen too much of Gil Hanse over here either, so I guess lack of European exposure wasn't a factor. It would have had to go to Nicklaus or Player if that were the case.

"Tour credibility" - no, you'd have to give that to Nicklaus or RTJ.

My personal guess - and it is totally devoid of inside knowledge - is that the committee actually looked at the presentations and picked the one they liked best, knowing that of the fine lot of finalists anyone would be able to build a great course. It's perhaps a matter of preference in the end.

Ulrich

[Dan Herrmann]

Either way, it's a Gold Star day for GCA.

The fact that Gil won and the "US Open Doctor" type didn't speaks volumes about the potential for great GCA in the future.

[Anthony Gray]

If they had to choose between Hanse and Doak only, why do people think they picked Hanse?  Hanse is a fine architect, but I would argue that Doak is more accomplished and better.  Does it have something to do with Hanse having redone Boston and done Castle Stuart, verus Doak not having a track record on courses played on the tours IIRC, with the slight exception of the Kiwi challenge a few years back? 

  I think Castle Stuart had a big part in the decision.how many on the committee have seen it as compared to Pacific Dunes? Who was on the committee?

  Anthony

[Niall C]

Anthony

I think you're right about Castle Stuart. Peter Dawson of the R&A was on the panel so he would have been more than familiar with that as he would also be of Hanse's earlier design of the Craighead course at Crail.

Astravidres

Castle Stuart holding the Scottisdh Open was, I imagine, more about functionality of the design in terms of visitors and facilities etc. As good a course as it is the winning score after 3 rounds was 20 under so doesn't really say Hanse can provide the conventional championship course, assuming that the panel was thinking in those terms. Also remember the next course touted to host the Scottish Open after Castle Stuart is/was the Doak designed Rennaissance.

Niall

[Jud_T]

As good a course as it is the winning score after 3 rounds was 20 under so doesn't really say Hanse can provide the conventional championship course, assuming that the panel was thinking in those terms.

Niall,

That's one of the reason this is exciting.  Apparently they weren't thinking exclusively in those terms.

[Niall C]

Jud

Do you know in what terms they were thinking of ? As far as I know no one has posted the criteria for the comp. Whats to say the set up as opposed to the design might be along standard Tour lines. How far "forward" would golf design be then ?

Niall   

[Garland Bayley]

Not many have mentioned Amy Alcott in this thread. I'm thinking that having Amy on board was an astute decision given that Amy developed as a golfer in an environment much like what the Brazilians may be envisioning for Rio. Specifically she developed as a public course player in a large population city, Los Angeles.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Further speculation: perhaps Gil Hanse was the only architect, who was willing to relocate to Brazil and oversee construction of the course personally from start to finish?

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

Further speculation: perhaps Gil Hanse was the only architect, who was willing to relocate to Brazil and oversee construction of the course personally from start to finish?

Ulrich

Ulrich:

I can tell you for sure he is the only architect that was willing to do so.

I considered making the same offer, but did not.  I believe the past ten years have proven that our model [an on-site associate and shapers, and me visiting for a few days at a time] yields consistently excellent results, but I knew that the committee wanted to hear that level of commitment.  I did bring Brian Schneider with me to Rio as part of our presentation, and I think he made a very good impression -- but no one on that committee has ever been to Barnbougle to see what he can do.

That Gil is willing to move his family down there for the duration, more power to him.  I'm sure Mike Keiser doesn't mind waiting another year to build another course in Bandon to allow it to happen.  As for myself, I have some other very important commitments for the next two years, and I couldn't abandon them to go all in on the Olympics.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tom,

fair enough, your track record proves that your model works. Ironically, Gil Hanse wouldn't have been good enough as on-site man while he worked for you

However, I do believe that Gil could use your model (Jim Wagner on site and him visiting for a few days) in Bandon and other places, while he lives in Brazil.

Ulrich

[PThomas]

they just talked to Gil during the 3rd round...he is moving his family down to Brazil while he works on the course...

[Howard Riefs]

In Golf World Monday has an official overlay of the Rio course routing provided by Hanse:

http://www.golfworldmonday.com/golfworldmonday/201203-12/?pg=14&pm=1&u1=friend#pg14





Some other comments from Shackelford in the piece:

- Sandy site with a Seminole-meets-Sand Belt look
- #16 "morphs elements of the Road Hole with Riviera #10, with a boundary tempting players to drive along its edge to best open up an easier shot at the hole."
- Redan-like 17th

[Howard Riefs]

USGA website has the 1st interview with International Golf Federation head Antony Scanlon about the Rio design competition & Hanse.

An excerpt via GeoffShackleford.com:

Scanlon: All eight candidates gave exceptional presentations, and the Jury Panel was very impressed with each one. But through final evaluations, the overriding belief was that Hanse Golf Course Design did the best job overall of addressing the broad range of the criteria that were set forth from the outset in the request for proposals. We were particularly impressed with his ideas on design characteristics and hands-on creativity, and consideration for the facility’s legacy of promoting and developing golf in Brazil and globally.

There also are numerous issues to consider beyond the competitive design of the course for male and female Olympians, from access and flow of spectators during competition, to long-term maintenance and operation of the course, to the importance of environmental sustainability and the integration of native vegetation. In the end, we were very comfortable with Gil Hanse’s proposal and believe it will provide an outstanding Olympic venue as well as a golf course that will serve as a lasting legacy through the development and nurturing of golfers long after the Games.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2012/4/13/igf-head-on-hanse-selection-we-were-particularly-impressed-w.html

[Ronald Montesano]

Not really sure what this means a few posts up:  Ironically, Gil Hanse wouldn't have been good enough as on-site man while he worked for you

Kinda hoping it's an inside joke or a language-barrier thing. Good enough for whom?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Interesting to see the turning points of the playing line are actually shown in the Bunkers at Holes 2, 10 and 12.
Of course the player can choose his own turning point but nevertheless one doesn't often seen it drawn as such.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Ronald, I wrote that.

My speculation was that one of the deciding factors was that Hanse was the only architect willing to relocate to Brazil and oversee construction of the course personally. All other architects would have sent an associate as on-site man. So, amongst others, Tom Doak's associate wasn't deemed to be good enough. Ironically that would have been Gil Hanse a couple of years ago.

Ulrich

[RJ_Daley]

Well, since this is a GCA discussion group, and we now have a concept plan to nit-pick over, and we are a bunch of armchair archies (for the most part   )... I'll stick the first toe in the water and say it.  Doesn't this routing call some errant shot conflict into question?  It seems relatively obvious on the concept plan that 1-18 have a slice to slice conflict 11-12 hook to hook;  3-13 slice to slice; 1-7 to lesser extent hook to hook.  All that being said and we really can't know what the line of sight, elevations, contouring and shaping work will do to mitigate any of these concerns.  And, these concerns may not be as great for the best players in the world.  But, they do want this to be a launching pad for the growth of golf in Brazil, and that means many less skilled, and serial slicers and hookers...

It seems to me that they are going to be taking a lot of material from creating those lakes to use for feature shaping and spectator mounds, along with hole corridor definition.  So, I wonder if we are not looking more of a Whistling Straits, Chambers Bay sort of approach, than a Kiawah Ocean Course, or even Gil's own Castle Stuart maybe being less of an earth moving project (not that CS wasn't to that extent).  So, if we can follow the progress, and perhaps Gil and crew can provide on-going YouTube or embedded video of their construction progress, as they did with CS, we armchair archies may be in for a special on-going treat and plenty to yammer about.  Go Gil!!!  We in the peanut gallery are at your disposal for consultations...  

[Alex Miller]

Well, since this is a GCA discussion group, and we now have a concept plan to nit-pick over, and we are a bunch of armchair archies (for the most part   )... I'll stick the first toe in the water and say it.  Doesn't this routing call some errant shot conflict into question?  It seems relatively obvious on the concept plan that 1-18 have a slice to slice conflict 11-12 hook to hook;  3-13 slice to slice; 1-7 to lesser extent hook to hook.  All that being said and we really can't know what the line of sight, elevations, contouring and shaping work will do to mitigate any of these concerns.  And, these concerns may not be as great for the best players in the world.  But, they do want this to be a launching pad for the growth of golf in Brazil, and that means many less skilled, and serial slicers and hookers...

It seems to me that they are going to be taking a lot of material from creating those lakes to use for feature shaping and spectator mounds, along with hole corridor definition.  So, I wonder if we are not looking more of a Whistling Straits, Chambers Bay sort of approach, than a Kiawah Ocean Course, or even Gil's own Castle Stuart maybe being less of an earth moving project (not that CS wasn't to that extent).  So, if we can follow the progress, and perhaps Gil and crew can provide on-going YouTube or embedded video of their construction progress, as they did with CS, we armchair archies may be in for a special on-going treat and plenty to yammer about.  Go Gil!!!  We in the peanut gallery are at your disposal for consultations...  

Regarding driving zone conflicts, I don't see it as a huge problem.

All the shared fairways and DZ conflicts you mention anticipate a distance offset in the DZ for the shared holes. For instance, drives from 1 likely won't reach 7 or 18, and even if a mammoth drive is hit on any one of those holes offline, there are hazards in the way. Same goes for hole 13 since in order to hit it at hole 3 the drives would have to travel shorter than anticipated (though this might be the most dangerous one out there). Hanse has relied on this offset technique before, with the example I've seen first hand on holes 2 and 5 at Rustic Canyon. While the 5th green is close to the second fairway, it's 320+ to reach it, making it safe 99% of the time.

[Jud_T]

some highlights from an article in the current issue of Golfweek:

"...encouraged to hear from a very authoritative source that there's still a fair chance for something other than 72-hole individual stroke play at the 2016 Olympics..."

"the planned design includes what Hanse refers to as "half-par holes" the kind that involve lots of risk/reward and are ideal for match play."

"I myself would like to see some sort of team format", (Peter) Dawson tole the Forecaddie.  Turns out that the announced 72-hole stroke-play format is not final and "was based upon feedback from the top players."

"Dawson cautioned the Man Out Front that while "The IOC is open to a team competition...they don't like team play simply to be the addition of individual performances" and would prefer an "interactive format.""

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()